Spassky 39;s 100 Best Games

[Marti Buday]

Ihave seen lately in an interview with Boris Spassky that he is working on a book. I can't remember which interview it was or I would post a link. My inquiry is whether anyone here has any knowledge of this book? Maybe an upcoming titles news section from one of the major publishers has this information? I have poked around some sites and come up with nothing so far. I can only find an older Spassky game collection online and it is not authored by him and therefore not all that interesting to me. I feel that he is underappreciated in the chess publishing world and hope that a game collection being authored by him will be published. Any information on this topic would greatly interest me. Thanks to the forum contributors in advance!

That interview you read about on line is a bit old, I read it myself and knew then it would never happen. Only way it would get finished if someone he could now trust would step in and finish it with him and for him. Sounds like his personal life isn't going well either. What a shame. He was another one of my favorite players of all time. What an era he came from.

I do remember that he did analyze a Karpov match around 1974 for the USCF chess magazine. Might have been versus Polugaevsky. His annotating style was quite different. Seemed to spend less emphasis on tangible variations and more on the less concrete aspects of the match.

The problem with Spassky is that he always was rather lazy (a trait not uncommon among people with huge natural talent). In an interview he said that the book he wanted to write should be published after his death (presumably he had the idea to be brutally honest about some of his contemporaries, and planned a real reckoning with the Soviet authorities), also because it would be a labour of love, and 'no one makes money from writing chess books'. What with his stroke and all since then, this project has surely been shelved for good.

Spassky would have been better off writing a best games collection in the early to mid 1980s, when he, although past his best, still had considerable playing strength and energy to do the analytical work required, apart from the writing (for which he would have the details relatively fresh in his mind) itself - it would probably have become an instant classic and a bestseller. It wouldn't surprise me if he lost most of his interest in writing a book when the computers became strong.

That was a rather insightful answer @bonthecat . It is a great shame such a project has never happened as this leaves a huge hole in the chess literary canon. I would bet my bottom dollar that Spassky would have told some really great stories.

Yes, I think Spassky would have lots of very interesting things to say about his peak years in Soviet chess. Averbakh wrote a book a few years ago, which sort of hinted at a lot of the underhand dealings going on, but he was never really explicit. In interviews Spassky has spoken of his treatment after he lost the match against Fischer, but not in great detail. One thing Spassky has mentioned is how counterproductive the authorities were through their measures towards not only himself but also towards Taimanov. They were both barred him from travelling abroad for quite some time afterwards, and as Spassky pointed out, at that point, having suffered a bad defeat, what do you want to do? Go and hide in a corner and cry? No! You want to avenge your defeat, you want to show the world that you still know how to play chess. For this reason alone, Spassky's victory in the USSR championship in 1973 must have been very sweet.

I had forgotten that he won this championship just the next year! I'll have to get into some of those games. There's also a tournament book for the second Piatigorsky Cup which Spassky won where each player annotates their own games. This might be a good start.

I wanna get my hands on both Piatigorsky cup books for sure. I find it pretty funny to think of a Soviet chess delegation in sunny California. I also wanna get a set of the Herman Steiner pieces that were used in at least the second tournament to my knowledge, but the official Staunton company no longer makes their version and the others that are available now are just simply not affordable.

Piatigorsky Cup books are certainly very nice, in both the contestants to the games give fairly light notes to their games. Think first only available in hardback, but second is available in dover paperback too.

Recently, i have been very intrigued by Boris Spassky and his quality of play. I used to believe that his chess levels were quite low for a world champion, but boy was i wrong. He now gives me the impression of possibly one of the strongest of them all, below only the likes of Kramnik, Anand, Carlsen, Kasparov, and obviously, Fischer. After looking at some of his games, and reading about his rise in the chess world as young man, he struck me as sort of big talent that lowered itself over time after he became world champion. This somewhat saddens me, as i personally hate seeing potential like this being, well, 'wasted'. Interestingly enough, Spassky did not seem exactly past his prime by the time he played against Fischer (he actually played respectably well during the second half against an opponent far above 99% of the other players around, living or dead). I have also heard that he played his best during his matches against Karpov.

This is what confused me- does his prime reside his younger self (1960s-1970) wherein he tried harder more often and thought about chess more than anything else; during his greatest ordeal (his matches with Fischer wherein he pushed himself to his limits and even won a legitimate game against a man fully prepared to defeat him, who did nothing but live and breathe chess, unlucky the somewhat lazy, and less studied Spassky); or during his matches against Karpov wherein he supposedly played his best ever and tried his hardest?

I have heard things about his willingness to play and study chess, about his laziness, about his mental state during the fischer matches, but how much of this is true? did fischer somehow affect him that badly in their matches? was spassky that much underprepared?

I wouldn't really say he was underprepared he choose to play the match. Spassky had the option of not playing the match at all and just keeping his title by default owing to Fischers childish behaviour. They played and Fischer won because he was just the better player. I'd say he was in his prime it just wasn't enough.

Everything I have read about Spassky indicates that he was and is a lovely bloke and quite a laid back character. Probably too simplistic to say Fischer 'wanted it more', but his drive led to burnout and Spassky continued to live a contented life.

Spassky was known as a gentleman and was referred to as such by Fischer himself. The 1972 WCh match was as much about psychology as it was about chess.. Spassky had a weight on him that Fischer didn't: the pride and expectations of the USSR. By the halfway point of the match, Spassky began to seem ill. They called it "Fischer fever," as the same thing had happened to Larsen, Taimanov and Petrosian. Spassky was very much a worthy world champion. By the time of the 1972 match, however, Fischer had simply surpassed him in strength. Before that match, Bobby hadn't won a single game against Boris.

From 1965-1969 Spassky could make a very strong case for himself as the best player in the world. In the 1966 Championship cycle, he defeated Keres, Geller, and Tal--all chess immortals--in matches to win the right to play Petrosian for the world championship. He lost that match by the thinnest of margins. In the next championship cycle, he won matches against Geller, Larsen, and Korchnoi before finally defeating Petrosian and becoming champion. A remarkable run of excellence

People saying that Spassky could have kept the title by walking away in 1972 fail to realize that there were a lot of money involved in the match. Spassky played for a few thousand dollars in 1969 against Petrosian, while the prize fund for the WC 1972 was 250.000 dollars (thanks to Fischer of course). So you could say that Spassky made a favor to Fischer by playing. But it's also true that Fischer made a huge favor to Spassky. Spassky knew that he would get a huge amount of money for playing so he decided to play. After two games, leading 2-0, Spassky even had hopes that he would keep the title.

When critics claimed that Taimanov, Larsen, Petrosian and Spassky had all played below their normal strength in their matches against Fischer, Fischer's reply was that "People have been 'playing below their true strength' against me for fifteen years".

anyhow, could someone tell me when his prime was between the 3 options? and is there a possibility that he was indeed below his best during some of his matches agaisnt fischer? and did he really decline that much after that? ive also heard that karpov 'whooped' him, but then i heard that karpov himself said that spassky didnt prepare whatsoever, while he was very prepared for pretty much anything. how much of all this stuff is true?

The King's Gambit has been "refuted" at several points in the past. Most have later been proven incorrect, IIRC only two lines at this point seem suspect. But that's not the point. The point is: how many of your opponents know enough about those lines to play them as accurately as required to win? (John Shaw in his book on the KG noted analyzing one of the resulting positions overtaxed the water-cooling in the computer he was using to help analyze it.) Refuting something in theory does not equate to refuting it in over-the-board play.

3a8082e126